The Demon in Democracy

[Viki63]

I just read this book and found it eye opening. It’s by Ryszard Legutko, who lived and suffered under communism for decades—and fought with the Polish ant-communist movement to abolish it. It’s here.

Now I am politically naive, so the ideas may come as no surprise to many CAF members, but they surprised me, although once I read it, they seemed obvious.
He talks about the similarities between the liberal democratic man and the communist man, Both the communist man and the liberal democratic man refuse to admit that there exists anything of value outside the political systems to which they pledged their loyalty. And both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.

This made it clearer to me why there is such insane hatred of conservatives in some quarters, and why a lot of people just won’t entertain reasonable arguments.
The book is superficial in some respects, as he doesn’t go into a lot of details or examples, but it was helpful for me. I got it at my library.

.

 

[Peter_J]

“The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies” … well, not exactly a rosy title but I won’t complain, seeing as a haven’t been feeling too rosy about democracy. (I won’t name names but I don’t like the current head of my country, but I don’t see him as the problem inasmuch as I didn’t like the guy we had for the past eight years either. I did like the guy we had before that, but his own party doesn’t seem to like him all that well anymore so what does that say? )

“I didn’t fight George III to become George I.”

I wonder, did the inventors of democracy intend that there be a close election after which the winning side gets to call the shots? Seems like we could improve the system a little.

 

[St_Francis]

This is not at all surprising, given that both liberal-democracy and Communism sprang from the same root. Conservatism seems like an attempt to graft some elements of natural law/Chrisitanity, which would mitigate the worst effects of so-called Enlightenment thought, but as religion dies in the West, conservatism’s vision becomes more and more obscured.

 

[tuffsmurf]

This is not at all surprising, given that both liberal-democracy and Communism sprang from the same root. Conservatism seems like an attempt to graft some elements of natural law/Chrisitanity, which would mitigate the worst effects of so-called Enlightenment thought, but as religion dies in the West, conservatism’s vision becomes more and more obscured.

And which root would that be? Liberalism came from the enlightenment during the 18t century and communism came from the worker’s movement in the 19th century. Liberalism and communism have less in common than liberalism and conservative.

A question that needs an answer is what people mean with liberalism. Do they mean talk about Barack Obama or Robert Nozick when they talk about liberals? Traditionally in Europe, the liberals wanted to reduce to government while the conservative wanted to expand it.

 

[St_Francis]

And which root would that be? Liberalism came from the enlightenment during the 18t century and communism came from the worker’s movement in the 19th century. Liberalism and communism have less in common than liberalism and conservative.

A question that needs an answer is what people mean with liberalism. Do they mean talk about Barack Obama or Robert Nozick when they talk about liberals? Traditionally in Europe, the liberals wanted to reduce to government while the conservative wanted to expand it.

While a more immediate precursor to communism may have been workers’ movements, the underlying philosophy had Enlightenment thinking as its foundation.

 

[tuffsmurf]

While a more immediate precursor to communism may have been workers’ movements, the underlying philosophy had Enlightenment thinking as its foundation.

But how? The enlghtenment was all about the individual person and her rights and freedom, and to liberate the individual. Communism on the other hand, is collectivistic by nature. The individual person is of no interest, what’s important is class conflict and ti liberate the working class. Therefore, liberalism and communism is as different as noght and day.

You can find critizism of religion in both movements though. Some of the enlightenment philosophers were christians and others were atheists, and they tended to be in favor of religious freedom and separation of state and church. When it comes to communism, Marx was clearly not a believer and was kind of sceptic towards religion (although he once wrote that religion was “the heart in a heartless world”). Later most of the revolutionaries were firmly anti-theists, implementing state-atheism in some ocountries

 

[Luvz2travel]

People have to believe in something. If it’s not a religion they will substitute a political idealogy. That’s pretty much what the left has done. That’s why you can never question or debate their beliefs. Once you understand that then all their obnoxious behavior makes sense. I’m not saying all liberals are like this but certainly the far left ones are.

 

[St_Francis]

But how? The enlghtenment was all about the individual person and her rights and freedom, and to liberate the individual. Communism on the other hand, is collectivistic by nature. The individual person is of no interest, what’s important is class conflict and ti liberate the working class. Therefore, liberalism and communism is as different as noght and day.

You can find critizism of religion in both movements though. Some of the enlightenment philosophers were christians and others were atheists, and they tended to be in favor of religious freedom and separation of state and church. When it comes to communism, Marx was clearly not a believer and was kind of sceptic towards religion (although he once wrote that religion was “the heart in a heartless world”). Later most of the revolutionaries were firmly anti-theists, implementing state-atheism in some ocountries

Historical progressivism, the perfectibility of man, the idea that the individual is formed by society…

 

[tuffsmurf]

Historical progressivism, the perfectibility of man, the idea that the individual is formed by society…

Can you clearify how you mean that liberalism and communism believe in the perfectibility of man?

When it comes to the idea that the individual is formed by society, that is indeed one of the core stones in marxism, but not really in liberalism. I guess most liberals would agree to it in some degree, but wouldn’t most conservatives as well?

 

[St_Francis]

Can you clearify how you mean that liberalism and communism believe in the perfectibility of man?

Ishould clarify that I mean that 1. man can be perfected without any help from God, and 2. that man can this bring about the perfect society. The latter point is very clear in communism, but also inherent in modern thought generally. Even libertarian-anarchists and anarchist–free marketers believe that the freedom from government they advocate will bring about a perfect society in which no one will be tempted to do anything wrong.

When it comes to the idea that the individual is formed by society, that is indeed one of the core stones in marxism, but not really in liberalism. I guess most liberals would agree to it in some degree, but wouldn’t most conservatives as well?

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) had the idea that people are formed by their environment, and that the more “socialization” they had, the more bad they would be, that there was a state slightly above the “savage” that was all good. He proposed how to educate children so they would be good instead of bad.

One might be able to say, in fact, that the whole Enlightenment was a search of how to get people to be good without those annoying rules of the Church.

Liberalism as a US term is different from what we in the US are now forced to call classical liberalism, whiich is what the US conservatives are trying to conserve, albeit with some Protestant influence. I would say that the Left thinks man will be perfected by the imposition of the right type of society and that conservatives lean towards the idea that if people are free, they will chose to do the right thing out of a rational self-interest.

Since most people do not think about the philosophical foundations of what they espouse, they might say anything now regarding the perfectability of man, but that was a definite part of the Enlightenment foundation.